Recalling what is on AJ, the 2nd Omoto incident happened years before the "escape from Osaka." I recall somewhere that Takeda did hear about it - after the fact - and sent someone, I can't remember who, to check on Ueshiba's well being.

Hi Ellis
First up I was talking about the second suppression at the end of 1935 continuing into 36, not the first. I also was pointing out where the interview you cited erroneously pointed to Takeda arriving in Osaka around 33 when it was in fact 1936. Which lines up with my time frame and speculation / questions of whether Takeda was going to help Ueshiba? Or taking advantage.
Again though we agree that Takeda-actually was checking out for-not against Ueshiba on occasions ans was noted for it.
THis furthers my other essential point, that Takeda is too often painted in a bad light-maybe by design-whenever Ueshiba is mentioned. Contrary to opinion, I don't really care all that much. If he was that bad-fine by me-I just don't see it. I see him being unfairly treated within any discussion of Ueshiba.
We all know that Ueshiba had trouble dealing with him. Why don't we hear quite the same things from the other students?
We hear stories of Takeda being difficult-and I have no doubts? Like you, I saw some very weird and demanding behavior. Mine was in Daito ryu. What we don't hear of, from his other students, are these stories - that paint the man as a caricature of a man.
And the monetary figures Ueshiba claimed he had to pay were exaggerated and inflated, and the eimoroku proves that out. While it was expensive, Ueshiba made it sound like extortion. I take Ueshiba's claims in context to the rest of his behavior. Funny, that no one else among Takeda's students had the sort of trouble Ueshiba had, but no one else was doing the type pf things Ueshiba was doing either.

The reason the letter from Sokaku to Ueshiba was important is it outlined a series of questions from Sokaku.
Some of which were
"Why are you lying about the house you supposedly gave me?
Why are you not fulfilling the agreement between us?"
And chief among them -I think it was the last one, I have to find it-was the general query:
"Why are you telling lies about me?"

So while I do not disagree with anything in your reply, I can't help but point out that where Ueshiba is involved we are not talking about one bold, and colorful, and weird, character -but two.
I tend to see their relationship a bit differently.

Takeda in a different light
I don't begrudge Ueshiba's ascension one bit-just the apparent need to always denigrate Takeda somehow, someway in the process. As was also pointed out by Stan, and born out in Takeda's eimoroku-he taught all manner of the privileged class, admirals, generals, captains, police chiefs (it's fair to say he was thee main source of teaching for the Japanese police department for years) princes and princesses, on an on. Judging from the social standards of the day, he had to have exhibited a very controlled and reasonable demeanor and character and been of substantial reputation to have done so. Of further note and mentioned in Peters article was Ueshiba's acceptance, and the acceptance of Daito ryu by the military in Tokyo. In fact Peter specifically mentions Daito ryu though he calls it aiki-budo-a name change that Ueshiba made on the Hiden mokuroku of Daito ryu he was awarding about that time. What was NOT mentioned was the many years of Takeda doing the actual teaching, and firmly establishing a relationship with that same military in his Daito ryu.
It strikes me as a bit odd, that even to this day, biographers leave out crucial connections either by design or by chance that in the end…once again…elevate Ueshiba's doings, without the slightest suggestion as to just how Takeda's substantial reputation either opened doors for Ueshiba or he was there first. I find this instance particularly egregious, in that Takeda taught the military for years before, and after and it was HIS hard work that firmly established Daito ryu in the militaries view, and gave Ueshiba that foot in the door. In fact just before and then during his arrival in Osaka, Takeda's eimoroku records him teaching military officers. It doesn't seem a small matter to me in such an exhaustive paper on the subject. One line would suffice.
Anyway, there is perhaps a more reasonable portrait of Sokaku that should always at least be mentioned whenever we read of him as the whack job curmudgeon "chasing" Ueshiba all over Japan for a few yen. The idea of chasing Ueshiba all over the country for the sums involved seems out of place. I question the motives and veracity of it at face value. I think there was something else going on.
Considering how strong a personality Sagawa was, and Kodo while less so, was still substantial how did they retained a bond with Takeda? They retained a relationship with Takeda for years, all while they continued to state they had made changes and had personal enlightenments. Though having strong opinion's of Takeda, it was nothing like the stories we heard from Ueshiba's camp. And both of -them- had very strong opinions of Ueshiba's behavior.

I think Ueshiba was a larger than life character anyway -further fueled by the grandiose behaviors of Deguchi, and was going to end up being center stage no matter who or what stood in his way. Whether by design or by chance I find it in no way surprising that when Ueshiba ended up on his own with the spotlight, camera's, and tape recorders solely on him-we got to hear volumes- mostly about himself.

It's nice to read admonitions like "We stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us."
Nicer still to see someone of substance actually capable of doing so.
I think Stan's admonition that you simply cannot discuss Ueshiba in any meaningful way without discussing Takeda and Deguchi continues to hold true.